Delete wireless charging plate for thinner lighter phone?

Peter Harvey

New member
Aug 12, 2014
58
0
0
Visit site
Who thinks that Nokia should omit the built-in wireless charging plate for a thinner & lighter phone?

Or alternatively trade the built-in wireless charging plate for a larger mAH capacity battery for longer run times?

Or have two different models: a thinner lighter model with no built-in wireless charging, and a thicker and heavier model with built-in wireless charging?

Eg, the 1520 weighs 209 grams, while the equivalent Galaxy Note 3 weighs only 160 grams...
 

DL Durand

New member
Nov 25, 2012
15
0
0
Visit site
The wireless charging 'plate' in the phones are about .5 gram and .5mm thick. Not much gained for removing one of the best features, imo. The wireless charging has little bearing on the weight difference of the two phones.
 

Squachy

New member
Oct 29, 2012
504
0
0
Visit site
Wow, apart from the 1520's 0.3" & an extra 200 mAH, I wonder how the 1520 became 49 grams heavier than the Galaxy Note 3?

Its a mystery. Nokia just sucks at space efficiency I think. They can have the exact same everything as their competition and they'll always end up like 50g heavier and 5mm thicker for some odd reason. It shouldn't be a debate though, most of the competition end up enclosed in a big rugged case and they end up being thicker than a Lumia anyways. I mean sure you can put a case on a Lumia and make it even thicker but I believe you don't need anything more than either naked or have one of those screen protector films (front and back).
 

RumoredNow

New member
Nov 12, 2012
18,134
0
0
Visit site
Wow, apart from the 1520's 0.3" & an extra 200 mAH, I wonder how the 1520 became 49 grams heavier than the Galaxy Note 3?

Grab a Note 3 at each end and twist... Try the same with a 1520. You'll see the weight went into the casing and rigidity. Especially important with a huge Phablet screen. Uncle Sammy knows their devices are "disposable" and they count on you getting a new one every six months or so.


Its a mystery. Nokia just sucks at space efficiency I think. They can have the exact same everything as their competition and they'll always end up like 50g heavier and 5mm thicker for some odd reason. It shouldn't be a debate though, most of the competition end up enclosed in a big rugged case and they end up being thicker than a Lumia anyways. I mean sure you can put a case on a Lumia and make it even thicker but I believe you don't need anything more than either naked or have one of those screen protector films (front and back).

You say it is a mystery, then you go on to explain it... LOL.


How did the ATT 1520 model without Qi stack up?

IMO, no Qi = no deal.
I want it built in if possible.

That's because you are an old webOS dog and you learned to count on using a TouchStone. :cool:
 

Devhammer

New member
Aug 30, 2014
12
0
0
Visit site
How did the ATT 1520 model without Qi stack up?

IMO, no Qi = no deal.
I want it built in if possible.

I bought an unlocked 1520 for just this reason. AT&T is part of the PMA group, the rival to Qi, which is why they dumped Qi from their version of the 1520. My 920 had Qi built in, and I've got both a wireless charging plate and the JBL PowerUP speaker dock, so Qi is a key feature for me.

Sadly, I'll have to wait to enjoy my 1520, as I busted the screen the second day I owned it. The frame may well be more rigid than a Galaxy Note 3, but it's still got more flex than my 920, which has taken many a spill with no damage to the screen.
 

Hawk Tartaros

New member
Jan 18, 2014
42
0
0
Visit site
The wireless charging is awesome, they should keep it in there because it is the only way i charge my phone at the moment.
Also i like the feeling of a bit heavier phone, it makes it more feel more mature and durable.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,736
Messages
2,242,598
Members
427,978
Latest member
Duouser3